In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench **
1- Civil Writ Petition No.11301/2009
M/s VijayVargiya Boora Batasa Udhyog
Versus State & Ors.
2- Civil Writ Petition No.10900/2009
M/s Manish & Company Versus State & Ors.
Date of Order ::: 16/03/10 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Bharat Saini, for petitioner, Mr. SN Kumawat, AAG for respondent-States Mr. Inderjeet Singh, for respondents Since both these petitions involve common question, hence at joint request, were heard together and are being disposed of by present order.
Grievance of the petitioners is that that petitioners are registered Firms and engaged in manufacturing all kind of edible boora etc.; and their grievance is that their Firms purchased agricultural produce (sugar) from outside the State and after its process at their factory, produce various kinds of boora etc., as such the issue involved is as to whether Mandi fee is leviable on the petitioners because no sale & purchase of agricultural produce took place within the mandi area and secondly whether S.17 of Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961 attracts in these matters or not.
It has not been disputed during arguments that the issue raised in the instant petitions was examined by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dt.15/01/2010 in M/s Shakun Oils Ltd Vs. State (CWP-11837/2009 & cognate cases), wherein the Court took note of judgment dt.05/02/2009 rendered at the principal seat at Jodhpur in M/s Shivam Agro Food (P) Ltd Udaipur Vs. State (CWP-5230/2006) and so also judgment dt.17/12/2009 in M/s Vikas Oil Products Vs. State & Ors (CWP-9942/2009), and finally observed ad infra:
Accordingly, same order is passed in these writ petitions also, as has been passed in Writ Petition No.5230/2006. The only alteration is regarding the interim order.
After attempting to argue the matter for some more time, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in this batch of similar writ petitions submit that in view of the objections urged on behalf of the respondents about the matter involving disputed questions of fact and about availability of alternative remedy per Section 34(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (‘the Act of 1961’), the petitioners shall stand advised not to proceed with these writ petitions any further; and seek permission to withdraw with liberty for the petitioners to take resort to the remedy under Section 34(2)(b) of the Act of 1961 and further liberty to take resort to appropriate remedies, in case any grievance remains after the decision of the matter under Section 34(2)(b) of the Act of 1961.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have no objection if the entire matter is kept open and rights of the parties to take resort to appropriate remedies in accordance with law are kept intact.
These writ petitions were filed in the wake of the Notification dated 27.04.2005 whereby Sub-rule (4) of the Rule 58 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1963 (‘the Rules of 1963’) was deleted; and the petitioners essentially averred that they had been purchasing agricultural produces from outside the State of Rajasthan and were bringing about a different product by way of processing and, therefore, according to the petitioners, no market fees could have been levied upon them under Section 17 of the Act of 1961. The submissions of the respondents have been that the petitioners failed to furnish the requisite information as required by the Rules of 1963 and Bye-laws framed thereunder and, therefore, some of the petitioners were issued notices; and that the contentions urged in these petitions pertain to the disputed questions of fact about the source of purchase of the petitioners, about the effect of processing done by them, and about the sale made thereafter, and if at all the petitioners had any grievance as to whether any money is due to the concerned market committee or not, the same could have been referred under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the Act of 1961; and else, the validity of the Notification dated 27.04.2005 has already been upheld by this Court in CWP NO. 620/2008 (M/s. Saurabh Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State & Ors.) on 24.01.2008.
Having regard to the over all facts and circumstances of the case and the stand of the respective parties, this Court finds it appropriate and in the interest of justice that the petitioners be permitted to withdraw with liberty for them to make, within thirty days, proper representation/s to the Director concerned under section 34 (2) (b) of the Act of 1961 and with liberty to the parties to take resort to appropriate remedies in accordance with law, if any grievance remains after the decision by the Director on such representation/s. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it is considered appropriate, and hence observed, that it shall be expected of the Director concerned to deal with the matter expeditiously and to take final decision as early as possible preferably within sixty days from the date of making representation/s.
Needless to say that it shall be expected of the Director to objectively examine the matter on the representation/s, if made within thirty days from today, after making appropriate enquiry and affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the applicants.
During pendency of the representation(s)/appeal(s) before the Director concerned, the respondents will not effect the recovery of the amount so demanded towards Mandi fee. The petitions are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty for the parties as aforesaid. No costs.
The parties would be at liberty to produce and call for the original Gazette Notification.
However, Government Counsel has not controverted that the petitions relate to notification dt.27/04/2005 whereby Sub-rule 4 of R.58 the Rules 1963 has been deleted. As regards judgments (supra), it has not been disputed by them about controversy being decided by the Court.
In the light of what has been observed vide judgment dt.15/01/2010 in M/s Shakun Oils Ltd Vs. State (CWP-11837/2009 & cognate cases)(supra), instant writ petitions stand disposed of; however, during pendency of their representation(s), the respondents will not effect the recovery of the amount so demanded towards Mandi fee. No order as to costs.
(Ajay Rastogi), J.
K.Khatri/p4/
11301CW09-Ma16Dsp-AgrMndiTax.doc